lanhu_search_images

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral characteristics. However, it only states the search intent and gives no indication of whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior cookie setup (e.g., lanhu_set_cookie), or any limits such as pagination or response size. The existing output schema is present but not referenced, so the description carries an insufficient burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a straightforward search operation, though it could have been slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with three required parameters and a known output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, because there are no annotations and no usage guidance, the description lacks the context an agent needs to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in terms of behavior (e.g., read-only nature, prior authentication via lanhu_set_cookie). The existing schema covers parameter definitions but not operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (keyword, team_id, project_id) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any specific semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable given the coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (search) and the resource (design images) with a scoping condition ('in the specified project') and the search criterion (by name keyword). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like lanhu_search_projects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or mention other search tools like lanhu_search_projects. The agent is left to infer context from the sibling list, which is not dependable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.